1. 22 NEWS
E M C E p e r c e p t i o nletter 1/2005
Practical remarks
debate over
Culture of dispute and
by Harald Klussmann
Current situation
In the public, the topic ‘electrosmog“ is controver-
sially discussed in association with mobile radio and
electromagnetic fields. ‘Electrosmog“ is a catchword
raising very strong emotion, as it touches on subcon-
scious fears. In addition, science itself has come to
heterogenous and – for laypersons – contradictory
conclusions. The rapid expansion of mobile radio net-
works continues to prompt new discussion and dis-
pute over the acceptance of mobile radio technology
that is now used in Germany by more than 71 million
people. Thus, the number of mobile radio users has
far exceeded the number of fixed network users.
Risk assessment –
laypersons and experts
In the assessment of technological risks, experts lean
on factors such as probability of occurrence and po-
tential extent of damage. From the perspective of
laypersons, these factors are virtually uncalculable.
The consequence is a subjective assessment that
often distinctly deviates from expert evaluation, as
comparisons between risk assessments of layper-
sons and experts illustrate1
. This is especially true of
technologies such as mobile radio, which is “per-
ceived” neither through visible emission nor through
other influences perceptible by sense organs. The
feeling to be able to exert an influence on an alleged
risk is crucial for the willingness of people to accept
it. Among other things, this subjective influencing fac-
tor decides whether people are ready to take a risk or
not. Motor vehicle traffic or smoking are examples of
generally accepted risks of very serious consequence
for thousands of men and women. The aspect of
usefulness is crucial for normal citizens: If a technol-
ogy brings direct advantage (or thrills resp. pleasure),
people are more willing to accept a greater extent of
damage.
A characteristic of the perception and the use of
mobile radio is the fact that there is no clear associ-
ation with effects. There is a huge time gap between
occurrence of the alleged risk and a potential proven
effect. This increases uncertainty and intensifies the
call for “decisive action”. Typical is the publicly voiced
demand for a “zero risk” that, logically, cannot exist
and even less can be effected by intense discussion
and dialog.
Consequentially, the “refusal” of industry to orient
its action towards the “zero risk” and to opt for volun-
tary precaution measures until a “zero risk” is scien-
tifically established, is interpreted by concerned lay-
persons as indirectly confirming the existence of a
risk. Quite often, this is the basis of many problems
in communication with regard to newly planned or
existing mobile radio sites.
E M C E p e r c e p t i o n

2. 23E M C E p e r c e p t i o n letter1/2005
NEWS
‘electromog’
risk discussion in the
Communication in an open society
Political officials of all levels, who naturally are also
citizens, do not remain unimpressed by these contro-
versies over factual or alleged risks. This is the rea-
son why companies need adequate communication,
as is generally required in an open society, to pre-
serve their legimitation and their economic action
radius. It does not suffice anymore to provide techno-
logical accurate problem solvings. They must also do
their share in creating acceptance of solutions thought
to be adequate. Against this backdrop, politics de-
mand intensification of the discussion with citizens,
based on clarification, transparency and participation.
Partners of dialog
Five main actors are partners in the dialog with net-
work operators:
1. politics and administration at different levels
2. national and international research institutions
3. the churches and their institutions
4. associations
5. citizens’ initiatives.
The local focus of media interest is on citizens’ initi-
atives, since they articulate fears and concerns of
part of the population in the vicinity of mobile radio
stations. While the dialog with the other four actors
mostly takes place on an objective meta-level, the
dialog with persons directly concerned and with citi-
zens’ initiatives quite often is rather emotional and

3. 24 NEWS
E M C E p e r c e p t i o nletter 1/2005
almost always related to a specific site. Experience
actually shows that general discussion about mobile
radio without relations to a specific site is of very low
interest to citizens.
Between evidence and emotion
However, the willingness to resist is growing as soon
as mobile radio infrastructure becomes visible in the
vicinity of one’s own home. “Mobile radio use, yes,
transmission masts, no – that is the motto of many
people living in the vicinity of installations. Evidently,
most people have no problem accepting the useful-
ness of their mobile phone, but reject the required
technology in their vicinity as a safety risk and an
arbitrary intrusion into their living environment.
No layperson has to have a detailed understanding of
mobile radio network technology – as is eg true of the
functioning of a modern anti-block system in order to
be a good driver. Only when coupled with unconscious
fears and insufficient or incomprehensible informa-
tion given by station operators, deficiencies in tech-
nological knowledge become a communication prob-
lem. Subsequent protests then are often an expres-
sion of a massive loss of trust in the competence of
participants, going hand in hand with a sense of pow-
erlessness.
As mobile radio is a new technology, uncertainty aris-
es, sometimes even fear and rejection. This includes
also doubt with regard to reliability and social re-
sponsibility of politics, economy and the justice to-
wards the general population. To create a new basis
of trust in this atmosphere of distrust is therefore
the ultimate goal of the dialog with citizens initiated
by mobile radio operators. “The focus is on the trust
in the accuracy of data and facts, the competence of
those involved and fairness, equal opportunities, and
openness between communication partners.”2
Can trust and credibility be created?
In practice, this task often proves to be difficult, but
in many cases it can be solved. Credibility is espe-
cially important for creating a basis of trust. It is
based on a subjective assessment of trustworthiness
of companies, closely related to persons and what
E M C E p e r c e p t i o n

4. 25E M C E p e r c e p t i o n letter1/2005
NEWS
they say. Normally, “credibility” is understood as a
sense that, what a person says, very probably is accu-
rate. High credibility is based on previous experience.
Dialog or discussion?
The term “dialog” mainly refers to conversations in
small groups in this article. It is generally character-
istic for a fair dialog that all people involved share
same eye level. The impression people have of the
other is essential for their communication behavior.
If the partners of a dialog, despite different opinions,
feel that there is appreciation and respect, one of
the essential requirements of succesful dialog is met.
Good dialogs allow to minimize potential conflict be-
tween the participants and to create a new, often
improved basis for the relationship. Part of this is to
accept the positions of others instead of “discussing
away”. Moreover, the probability to find effective so-
lutions is increased by adding the knowledge and
informations of invidual discutants.
Discussions, often taking place before an audience
of several hundred people, may be part of dialog
measures. But quite often they are contradictory to
the original goal of dialog. Why is that so? Many
discussions seem ritualized: The “company represen-
tative” meets the “mobile radio critic”, and the “con-
cerned citizen” sits in the audience. All have come
equipped with solid role patterns and expectations
and rarely are disappointed. Involuntarily, many orga-
nizers promote this behavior insofar as they, in their
sincere effort to bring together company representa-
tives, mobile radio critics and concerned citizens,
overlook that substantial results rarely are achieved
by large panels. Here, every participant is striving to
save face. People who frequently have been part of
such events, know that authentic dialog often begins
where people stand together drinking a beer or cof-
fee after the event has been officially closed and the
local press has gone long ago.
Therefore the question has to be: How can stereotyp-
ic behavior patterns that inhibit dialog be broken?
While a discussion (Latin from discutere = break up,
take apart) is about separating, sectioning and con-
fronting well-defended opinions, the goal of dialog is
to explore communalities and to jointly search for
problem solutions3
.
In dicussion, we often see intensified polarization
expressed in catchwords and simple solutions instead
of joint reflection on complex relations and the com-
mon search for resolution. One of the most common
vices is to indulge in overhasty and unchangeable
assessments of environment and other people. Even-
tually, these constitute “reality”, which holds us hos-
tage and prevents open discussion. From this per-
spective, the initial situation of a discussion panel is
unfavorable, if there shall be conversation about dif-
ferent site options towards conflict resolution.
Agree on rules
This is not to say that discussion should not take
place, or without participation of companies. Howev-
er, such events challenge organizational skills. The
agreement on clear rules and an impartial modera-
tion that may build bridges and possibly dampen ex-
cessive emotions, are part of basic requirements. At
the start of each discussion goals should be agreed
on and put on a list that will be checked at the end of
discussion. What was achieved? What did not? This
result should be documented. “Letting steam off”
has a certain value – but leads nowhere in discus-
sion. Participants of a panel discussions themselves
can do much for the success of this type of dialog. It
is highly recommended to show mutual respect: It is
expressed in personal messages that must not insult
others.
Concrete examples should be used to promote mutu-
al understanding. Generalizing expressions, such as
“never” and “always”, in turn provoke generalizing
counterstatements. Constant repeating of old prob-
lems only leads to new controversy. The resolution of
present difficulties is made even more difficult. There
must not be generalizing critique of the behavior of

5. 26 NEWS
E M C E p e r c e p t i o nletter 1/2005
others – for generalizing critique catalyzes defense
mechanisms where the self-image is in danger, and
defence strategy in those that were attacked. But
people will be ready to talk about individial behav-
ior.
Risks and limits of dialog
The risk of failure is generally inherent in dialog. The
examples of bad or failed discussion will be far more
than those of successful ones. The risk increases
when participants intrumentalize dialog for their own
goals, or if rules priorly agreed on are violated. More
often, failed dailog is due though to a false assess-
ment of the partners’ goals or simply of their recep-
tional abilities. If dialog fails, the principal willingnes
to discuss things should not be given up and sig-
nalled to all participants. A pause in dialog can be
creatively used and be the stepping stone towards a
new beginning.
Summary
Dialog is a tool for creating understanding, and not
for controversial dispute. It is not about maintaining
own positions, rhetorical eloquence or enforcement,
but about a search for communalities and agreement.
Dialog requires critical partners and constructive,
amicable critique, but also solid general conditions
and commitments. It is some sort of probationary
reflection. Who wants to do it in earnest, will profit
from it. Positive experience shows that this is the
right way to go.
Footnotes
• 1
see the study „Kind und Umwelt“, Munich, January 2004.
The study compares in a ranking the risk perception of par-
ents with objective risk estimates of science.
• 2
Thomas Jung and Olaf Schulz, Bürgerforum Elektrosmog
1999
• 3
see David Bohm, Der Dialog. Das offene Gespräch am Ende
der Diskussionen (ed. Lee Nichol), Stuttgart 1998, at first:
On dialogue. London/New York 1996
E M C E p e r c e p t i o n
Short presentation
Dipl. Ing. Harald Klussmann (58) studied Com-
munication Engineering. His career began at the
Mercator University Duisburg, at the Institute of
Radio and Highest Frequency Technology. After
that he worked with the industry. After several
years at Marconi Instruments in Germerling, St.
Albans (England) and Donibristle (Scotland), and
then at Rohde & Schwarz, Munich, he went to E-
plus 11 years ago. There he was director of
department for network quality in Southern Ger-
many until 2001.
As network expansion in Southern Germany from
the start was met with the scepticism of part of
the population, Klussmann also dealt with the
issues of dialog and technology mediation in
the public. Very soon this work was too much to
be done on the side. In 2001, he therefore ac-
cepted a full-time position as a consultant for
Mobile Radio and Environment at E-plus Munich.
As in the years before, Klussmann gained much
practical experience there in his dealings with
critical dialog partners. A small part of this ex-
perience is reflected in this article.